Re: Hot Standby and handling max_standby_delay - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Hot Standby and handling max_standby_delay
Date
Msg-id 5960.1263828258@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Hot Standby and handling max_standby_delay  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Hot Standby and handling max_standby_delay  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Whether or not anyone bothers with the timestamp message, I think adding
>> a message type header is a Must Fix item.  A protocol with no provision
>> for extension is certainly going to bite us in the rear before long.

> Agreed a message type header is a good idea, although we don't expect
> streaming replication and the protocol to work across different major
> versions anyway.

Speaking of which, just where is the defense that makes sure that
walsender and walreceiver are compatible?  We should be checking not
only version, but all of the configuration variables that are embedded
in pg_control.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dimitri Fontaine
Date:
Subject: Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Streaming Replication on win32